摘要
目的 对比鼻内镜下电凝止血与常规前鼻孔填塞两种方法治疗鼻出血的止血效果和耐受性。方法 对126例鼻出血患者分为两组,76例鼻内镜下双极电凝止血组（电凝组）和50例前鼻孔填塞止血组（填塞组）,观察一次鼻出血控制率、耐受程度、住院时间和复发率。结果 电凝组鼻出血一次控制率98.7%（75/76）,耐受评分（2.91±0.07）,住院时间（4.11±0.07）d,3个月复发率2.63%（2/76）;填塞组鼻出血一次控制率72.0%（36/50）,耐受评分（7.96±0.10）分,住院时间（6.72±0.13）d,3月复发率16.0%（8/50）。两组差异均有统计学意义。结论 鼻内镜下双极电凝治疗鼻出血在效率和耐受性上显著优于常规前鼻孔填塞。前者有可能是临床处理急诊鼻出血的更优选择。
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect and clinical tolerance of endoscopic bipolar coagulation hemostasis（EBCH） and nasal packing（NP） in treatment of epistaxis.Methods The clinical data of 76 epistaxis patients treated with EBCH and 50 epistaxis patients treated with NP between Januaray 2009 and December 2011 were retrospectively analyzed.The two groups were matched in age,gender and bleeding sites.One time control rate of epistaxis,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups.Results The one time control rate,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were 98.7%（75/76）,（2.91±0.07）,（4.11±0.07）d and 2.63%（2/76） respectively in EBCH group.The one time control rate,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were 72.0%（36/50）,（7.96±0.10）,（6.72±0.13）d and 16.0%（8/50） respectively in NP group.There were significant differences between the two groups.Conclusion The treatment of epistaxis with EBCH is better than NP on the therapeutic effect and clinical tolerance.The former method is a potential preferable choice for the treatment of clinical emergent epistaxis.
出处
《中国基层医药》
CAS
2013年第9期1318-1319,I0001,共3页
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
关键词
鼻出血
鼻内镜
治疗结果
Epistaxis
Endoscope
Treatment Outcome
